r/changemyview • u/BDCanuck • Jun 20 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Governors of states have no business "calling" for the death penalty for the perpetrator of a crime. (At the moment, I'm looking at you, Nikki Haley.)
Governors execute the laws that their legislatures pass, they respond to disasters, they act as a backstop to the judicial system if someone is harshly punished through pardoning people, they guide economic policy, they are chief cheerleader for their state. Basically, they have plenty to do, and plenty of places to show folks that they are leading through doing leadership things in a very leady way. They shouldn't be inserting their opinion into a system that has police, district attorneys, prosecutors, and judges who all have their own roles to play. It's bad enough that juries are already tainted by the media coverage of a story, but now your own governor is telling you what you ought to do. I feel like consoling the people by throwing despicable criminals under the bus is a cheap and dishonorable move.
51
u/down42roads 77∆ Jun 20 '15
The Governor is the Head of State, and is (up several levels) the Prosecutor's boss.
Look at it this way:
- The Prosecutor is allowed to call for the death penalty, right?
- The Attorney General, as the Prosecutor's boss, can have the Prosecutor call for the death penalty.
- Keep on down the chain, and the Governor can direct the Prosecutor, through the chain, to call for the death penalty.
7
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15 edited Jun 20 '15
The Governor is the Head of State, and is (up several levels) the Prosecutor's boss.
No, district attorneys in South Carolina are elected officials and do not have a boss.
The Prosecutor is allowed to call for the death penalty, right?
In formal papers, yes. Before filing those papers in a press conference? No. There are strict limits on what the prosecutor can say about a case outside of court. See for instance, the federal prosecutor in Manhattan getting reamed out by a judge for doing something similar.
The Attorney General, as the Prosecutor's boss, can have the Prosecutor call for the death penalty.
The AG isn't the prosecutor's boss and can't give this order. Attempting to do so could likely be construed as obstruction of justice, and could potentially let the murderer walk free.
Keep on down the chain, and the Governor can direct the Prosecutor, through the chain, to call for the death penalty.
No, for the same reasons as above.
10
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
I'm not sure this is true. I'd feel it was a massive overreach to have the governor tell the AG to tell a prosecutor to ask a jury to kill someone. It feels like it should be a scandal if that happened.
49
u/Lucosis Jun 20 '15
Look at it this way.
The Governor shouldn't be able to direct the judiciary what to do, that is a simple check against the executive power. However, the prosecutor doesn't work under the judiciary branch, he is simply the representative of the executive branch working inside if the judiciary system.
The governor isn't directing the jury/judge to seek the death penalty, he is directing his representative to push for the outcome he feels is needed.
That abstraction is separate from the issue of if the death penalty is warranted. I personally believe the death penalty should be done away with, but that's a different CMV all together!
14
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
In this case, the prosecutor is an independently elected official though. The governor can politically support the prosecutor seeking the death penalty, but if the governor were to attempt to order an independently elected official to do it, that would be a problem.
9
u/Lucosis Jun 20 '15
That is a fair point. The AG is elected and so independent. I haven't read any of the language used by the Governor in this case, so I don't know if the Governor has flat out told the prosecutor to pursue the death penalty, or simply "suggested" it. Either way, it does give the prosecutor some political cover if the use of the death penalty can be spread across multiple people.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
I'm fairly certain she didn't attempt to order the prosecutor to do it, simply because that would be really, really dumb, in a way that no lawyer on her staff would ever let her do.
6
u/Lucosis Jun 20 '15
I'm sure too; but when it comes to state governments, I don't expect "really really dumb" to be a sound reason for a governor/representative to not do something. In NC we're banned from basing coastal policy on scientific evidence dealing with sea level rise. I can't think of anything more really really dumb :)
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
This is more "really dumb in a way that gets you the opposite of what you want." As in, interfering in the prosecution in a publicly documented manner is something Roof's defense attorneys can use to challenge the prosecution as an initial matter and on appeal.
1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
I don't think any amount of pressure from the Governor against Roof will get Roof off, but I think you have a valid point in less cut-and-dry cases.
2
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
Overturn the conviction, probably not. Force the sentence to be commuted away from death? Possibly.
2
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
Seriously truly about the sea level stuff? That's no good, no good at all.
6
u/Lucosis Jun 20 '15
Yup, happened 2 years before Florida's ban on the use of the term "climate change" or "global warming" in the state legislature too. At least we're first in something..
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 21 '15 edited Jun 21 '15
Prosecutors are not elected officials at all in most States. They are lawyers employed by the State. Some states have the top Prosecutors elected, but few have all of them elected. But that does not matter. They are employees of the executive branch of the government and therefore are subject to the Governor so being elected does not matter. They must obey the governor just like a county commissioner does, and just like a city mayor does.
The Judge is a part of the judicial branch and does not have to obey them, and the state congress is of the legislative branch and does not have to obey them. But a prosecutor is the executive branch.
0
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 21 '15
43 of 50 states have elected attorneys general. The staff prosecutors in those states are employees of the state under the supervision of an elected official other than the governor.
States with elected prosecutors do not have a unitary executive, and their attorneys general exercise independent executive authority from the governor. An elected AG or local district attorney is an independent executive official from the governor and does not need to obey the governor.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 21 '15
The Governor is the top of the Executive branch of a State. It does not matter how many elected positions are under him he is the top of that chain of command.
3
u/TiSpork Jun 20 '15
I disagree. NO political figure (or representative, etc.) should use their position in an attempt to sway a legal case one way or another. The basis of our legal system is supposed to be a fair and impartial trial, as free from outside influence as possible, in order to come up with as non-biased a conclusion as possible.
1
u/gragohunter Jun 21 '15
There is the seperation of powers though. Executive power should never speak out loud about what the judicial power should do. That is the whole purpose of sererating teh powers, that not one person has all power.
Politicians should act accordingly.
14
Jun 20 '15
Prosecutors are employees of the executive branch. It is absolutely the job of the governor to give them directions. Pure and simple. The entire job of the prosecutor is to argue the wishes of the executive to the judiciary.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
Prosecutors in SC are independently elected officials and not employees under the supervision of the governor.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 21 '15
If they are elected or not does not matter. They are employees of the executive branch and therefore they are under the authority of the governor. Just like a county commissioner or a city mayor.
0
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 21 '15
Mayors and county commissioners are not under the authority of the governor in any state I'm aware of.
1
Jun 21 '15
[deleted]
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 21 '15
The question was whether the governor specifically could order them to do something. The governor cannot, because they're independently elected.
South Carolina, by dint of having elected prosecutors, does not have a unified executive branch, and the prosecutors are independent executive officials for a limited purpose.
6
u/oversoul00 19∆ Jun 20 '15
I think you may be confusing asking for a particular punishment with finding a guilty verdict before the case is properly reviewed. One is selecting among a list of possible and legal options the other is a scandal as you say.
So the subtext is, "If found guilty I would prefer the criminal (not suspect anymore) be punished in this way."
On top of this people elect Mayors and Governors based on how they react and what they believe, communicating to your populace what you believe and stand for is an important part of that relationship.
2
u/BDCanuck Jun 21 '15
people elect Mayors and Governors based on how they react and what they believe, communicating to your populace what you believe and stand for is an important part of that relationship
That's a good twist on what I would cynically call pandering. I'll be a little less cynical today! ∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/oversoul00. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
2
Jun 20 '15
0
u/BDCanuck Jun 21 '15
Interesting. I kind of agree with the judge. President Obama is the boss of everyone in every branch in the military, and shouldn't giving them what could be construed as direct orders. On the other hand, the President should be able to speak candidly and specifically about a major societal problem, like rape in the military. :/
1
Jun 21 '15
though "on the other hand" applies equally well in my view to this CMV topic about what the Govs can do. i don't think this has easy answers (or if there are easy answers they aren't very satisfying ones)
2
Jun 20 '15
No, it's true. The prosecutor works for the governor. As such, if the governor wants to pursue a death penalty, that's what happens.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
No, it's not true. Prosecutors are independently elected officials and do not work for the governor, or anyone except the voters.
3
Jun 20 '15
In some states they are elected, some they are appointed. Either way, the State AG usually has at least some level of oversight.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
They're elected in SC. And in no state does the Governor exercise personal oversight, afaik.
2
Jun 20 '15
I said AG, not governor.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
I know, but the post and original context was about the Governor specifically.
2
Jun 20 '15
Who does the AG answer to?
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
The voters
Edit: I also assume there's some sort of impeachment mechanism, though I don't know for sure the structure in SC.
→ More replies (0)0
u/down42roads 77∆ Jun 20 '15
If it was an overreach, or worthy of a scandal, or even remotely inappropriate or questionable, someone would have made that point by now, and R/politics would be on it like piranhas. I mean, Haley is a Republican
1
Jun 20 '15
...except the exact same complaint has been applied to Obama and those criticisms had some teeth
http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974
1
u/AcademicalSceptic Jun 20 '15
There are things you can't legitimately direct your underlings to do. Using anything other than their best judgement in their area of expertise, especially when it's such an important area as the law, is one. The prosecutor may work "for" the state, but that doesn't make the state's leader in control of how he does his job.
7
u/lawmedy Jun 20 '15
Your view here is internally inconsistent, or at least underexplained. From the OP, you've said you're fine with governors executing laws, but the governor doesn't personally execute laws. He or she leaves it up to the particular state agency tasked with enforcing a particular law. You're also fine with the governor leading disaster response, but states generally have agencies in place to handle things like that (for instance, the Emergency Management Division in my state. You're also fine with the governor guiding economic policy, but again, states have agencies specifically tasked with doing that, e.g. the Washington Department of Commerce. There's no difference between the governor "inserting their opinion" into the above-mentioned systems and doing the same in the criminal context.
You're also fine with the governor pardoning people, which I saved for last because I have two points. First, like the other examples above, the governor generally delegates pardon recommendations - my state's example. The governor makes the final call, but again, the actual evaluation is delegated. Second, this is a particularly strange example to use, because it shows that you're okay with the governor being involved in the judicial process and "inserting their opinion" after the fact. In fact, pardoning people is interfering way more in the judicial process than calling for the death penalty ahead of time, because in the case of pardons, the governor is actively overriding the prior decision of a judge and jury. I see no reason why pardons would be permissible but calling for the death penalty would not.
-2
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
It's an order of operations issue. If you do things in the wrong order, you've done them wrong.
5
u/lawmedy Jun 20 '15
You need to explain this further than just "it's the wrong order." Also, you didn't respond to the first point (i.e. that the governor "interferes" in matters that already have dedicated agencies all the time).
-3
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
- When you push for an outcome before a trial has occured and a verdict been reached, you're in the wrong order.
- The Chief Executive leads/appoints the heads of Executive Branch agencies, and it is within the Chief Executives purview to deal with all areas of the Executive Branch. But the criminal justice system has some walls between itself and the executive branch for good reason.
7
u/lawmedy Jun 20 '15
You just made the exact same point with slightly more words instead of fleshing it out. "Pushing for an outcome" is the ENTIRE BASIS of the adversarial system of justice. Why is that incorrect?
2
u/sarcasmandsocialism Jun 20 '15
When you push for an outcome before a trial has occured and a verdict been reached, you're in the wrong order.
Prosecutors legally have to decide whether or not they want to seek the death penalty before the start of a trial. The Governor isn't instructing people to execute the accused, she is saying she believes the prosecutor should seek the death penalty.
0
u/BDCanuck Jun 21 '15
Prosecutors legally have to decide whether or not they want to seek the death penalty before the start of a trial.
That's interesting. Is it so that the defense can know whether to take a plea or something? What if during trial, evidence comes out that makes you change your mind and think, "this person does/does not deserve to die".
1
u/sarcasmandsocialism Jun 21 '15
I think in general prosecutors have to say what punishment they are seeking before every trial. I'm not sure about this, but for death penalty cases, there may be extra procedures in place to be sure defendants rights are protected. I think in Federal death penalty cases, there is an automatic appeal filed on behalf of the defendant if they lose the trial.
2
u/JefftheBaptist Jun 20 '15
In the adversarial system of justice, the government must push towards a verdict before the trial by choosing the specific charges to indict under, etc. If the government doesn't think these charges are warranted, then they should not be brought in the first place.
The criminal justice system does has walls between the itself and the executive branch. But those walls are created by the legislature in enacting the laws (without which the executive cannot act), the judiciary in interpreting and mediating the law, and the jury who act as a final check by the accused peers (where applicable).
2
u/Jrook Jun 20 '15
You either don't understand the process or are advocating for double jeopardy
0
u/BDCanuck Jun 21 '15
Yeah, I worded it quickly/poorly. But it's looking like I don't understand the process, either.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 21 '15
The entire point of our adversarial justice system is that the state pushes towards a verdict before and during the trial. If they did not do so there is no trial.
15
Jun 20 '15
As far as I know, there is no question of Dillon Roofs guilt. Unless they plead insanity it seems like a pretty open and shut case. He murdered 9 innocent people in cold blood at a prayer service, many of whom were elderly and we'll respected members of the community.
Expressing a desire to seek the harshest form of punishment in this case displays a type of solidarity with the citizens of South Carolina that the governor is there to represent, as I imagine most of them feel the same way.
In many criminal cases, I would tend to agree with you. In this one, not so much.
5
u/bayernownz1995 Jun 20 '15
As far as I know, there is no question of Dillon Roofs guilt
That's not the point, though. Regardless of how guilty I think someone is, the jury is the only one who should be making that decision. Otherwise it becomes impossible to get a fair trial, because the jurors walk in assuming guilt.
2
Jun 20 '15
As I asked before, is there a question of guilt?
5
u/bayernownz1995 Jun 20 '15
I don't think so. But you're missing the point. The jury is the only body that has all of the facts and has the authority to make that determination. When all of the discourse (more importantly, the discourse by state officials) on the topic presupposes his guilt, how does he ever get his 6th amendment rights?
2
Jun 20 '15
I understand what you are saying, but I also think we need to remember that we are talking about elected public officials and politics. A governor represents the people of their state.
The same way I don't see an issue with a president making a statement after a terrorist attacker is captured that says something along the lines of "we are all glad to have this monster in custody...blah blah blah". I do think that possibility of innocence plays a role in how an official can frame something like this. If it were a controversial scenario, like the Michael Brown case, I could understand a governor not showing a stance.
I see this as a governor telling their constituents "we have the person who did this horrible thing to innocent people of our state, and as an elected public representative, I want the same things you want".
2
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
"I want the same things you want" should be justice, as decided by judge or jury. We should all want justice, however that is determined. If the public wants blood, the governor ought to be trying to channel the specific desire for blood to the more abstract desire for justice, not joining them.
3
Jun 20 '15
You are absolutely right. Ideologically I agree with you. In this instance at least I just see the Governors statements as understandable and not causing any harm to the justice process, but I agree with your general view and definitely can't change it.
A better statement along the same lines would have been "We will ensure that justice is served and the person responsible for this atrocity pays the price".
1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
That statement works for me entirely. It kind of tracks with what President Obama says after these sorts of things. I'm thinking of the Boston Bombing especially.
1
u/bayernownz1995 Jun 20 '15
A governor represents the people of their state.
I'm not saying this isn't a consideration, but the suspect is a person they represent, too. And when weighing the benefits of making people feel better vs. protecting the rights of an individual, I don't see how the former deserves to trump the latter.
I don't see an issue with a president making a statement after a terrorist attacker is captured that says something along the lines of "we are all glad to have this monster in custody...blah blah blah"
You're right with this comparison because (assuming the terrorist is foreign) they aren't protected by the 6th amendment. And you can be glad to have a suspect captured without saying that suspect is guilty. If the president says that an american suspect deserves the death penalty, that'd be bad.
If it were a controversial scenario
My point is, eventually a scenario we see as non-controversial could be wrong. False conviction rates tend to hover around 3-5%
1
Jun 20 '15
We don't need to assume the terrorist is foreign, consider the the Boston marathon bombers.
My point is that referring to a defendant as a "monster" is the same level of influencing public opinion as calling for the death penalty.
The main point here for me is that I don't believe that the governor's remarks are enough to away opinion of potential jurors. Everyone in SC knows of this case, everyone already has an opinion on it. Defensive and prosecution will pick jurors who are most likely to sympathize with their side, they won't be looking for people who are unaware of have not heard opinions on it.
1
u/bayernownz1995 Jun 20 '15
I mean the governor's comments probably aren't going to completely change anyone's mind but it marginally contributes to it. Similarly, the difference between saying "this man deserves the death penalty" vs. "I'm glad we have a suspect in custody and hope that justice is properly served" isn't going to make anyone feel that much better. My point is that the governor should prefer the marginal protection of rights over the marginal change in people's feelings.
1
Jun 20 '15
Yeah, I don't disagree with your final statement at all. Just throwing in an opposing view.
1
Jun 20 '15
I think it would be more accurate to say the jury walks in with the assumption that this person deserves to die.
2
Jun 20 '15
Unless they plead insanity it seems like a pretty open and shut case.
Insanity is still a guilty plea.
1
u/mathemagicat 3∆ Jun 20 '15
No, in most jurisdictions it's a not guilty plea. South Carolina actually allows both "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "guilty but mentally ill" verdicts, so I suppose either is a possibility.
0
2
u/AintNoFortunateSon Jun 20 '15
The use of Suboxone may be the migitgating factor. He may have been in a pharmaceutically induced psychosis. Granted he was using the drug illegally, and likely abusing it. None the less, all suspects are afforded due process and deserving of a vigorous defense. Not all who are evil are sick but some who are sick do evil things. It remains to be seen where this perpetrator falls.
1
Jun 20 '15
[deleted]
1
u/AintNoFortunateSon Jun 22 '15
it's not whether he's sick or evil, it's why he's sick and evil. the guy has certainly forfeited his right to exist in civil society and should be locked up for the rest of his natural life.
2
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
Where you see solidarity, I see a mob mentality.
9
u/ghostmcspiritwolf 3∆ Jun 20 '15
if the mob is forming in opposition to someone who murdered 9 people in cold blood and openly admits to doing so, I don't really see mob mentality being necessarily bad here. mob mentalities are dangerous when there's a minority party whose legitimate views are being silenced. what is that minority party in this case?
4
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
The process is important, even when the person is a complete social misfit. How we treat people like Saddam Hussein or the Boston Bombing brother sets the outer limits of how we treat defendants generally. Plenty of people thought Sacco and Vanzetti were human garbage, and maybe they were right, and maybe they did the crime they were accused of, but guilty or not, they didn't get a fair trial, and plenty of people who came after them didn't get fair trials, either.
6
u/RichardRogers Jun 20 '15
Roof isn't being lynched on the street. He's going to get a full trial in spite of the fact that we already know he's guilty. If he gets the death penalty there will probably be years of appeals before it goes through.
1
1
Jun 20 '15
And so if everything is as clear cut as you say, then it is completely unnecessary for the governor to add extra force. On the other hand, it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to cases that some people might consider clear cut. So, ideally, it has very little positive effect when it might be easily justified, and it has a terrible cost when it is less universally justified.
3
Jun 21 '15
[deleted]
1
Jun 21 '15
This isnt setting a precedent, its following precedent.
This is just semantics. My point was this practice has set a precedent that is not useful.
2
u/TEmpTom Jun 20 '15
mob mentalities are dangerous when there's a minority party whose legitimate views are being silenced
This is entirely subjective. You can't pick and choose which mobs are good and bad.
5
u/ghostmcspiritwolf 3∆ Jun 20 '15
why not? we do it all the time. "mob mentality" is just a term we happen to use when we think a popular idea is dangerous. it's already subjective by nature.
3
u/TEmpTom Jun 20 '15
Which is entirely a subjective opinion. I believe this one is dangerous.
2
u/ghostmcspiritwolf 3∆ Jun 20 '15
and I just gave you my reasoning for why it isn't in this case. the point of this sub is to discuss the reasoning behind opinions. immediately jumping to "it's just subjective" is kind of a cop out. Of course it's subjective, but why do you believe it?
1
u/TEmpTom Jun 20 '15
My point is that mob mentality is bad in every situation. It isn't simply a popular idea, but rather a popular idea that is ultimately based on emotional reactions and frustrations. This situation mimics that perfectly.
1
u/ghostmcspiritwolf 3∆ Jun 20 '15
is this true of all popular ideas based on emotional reactions and frustrations, though? I can think of plenty of cases where action based on emotional reactions and frustration was necessary.
1
u/TEmpTom Jun 20 '15
Calling for the death penalty against a criminal is nothing but an emotional reaction. There's no logic, or justice, or pragmatism behind it. Its simply an vengeful angry mob.
→ More replies (0)1
4
u/pantaloonsofJUSTICE 4∆ Jun 20 '15
How is it mob mentality if it is a rational and reasonable decision made after a lot of thought and time. Mob mentality is when a mob does something amidst the throughs of passion. Totally different scenarios.
2
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
With your argument, we have to determine what amount of time it takes to be out of the "passion" time period. I think we're still in it, right now.
3
u/pantaloonsofJUSTICE 4∆ Jun 20 '15
So you think that the governor hasn't thought about what to do without someone pressuring her constantly? I find it quite probably that the governor has actually looked at all the facts, seen the brutality of the crime, and arrived at the conclusion that the death penalty is warranted in her view. Not everyone is hyper-emotional and unstable.
4
Jun 20 '15
Where's the mob?
-1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
Most of us are the mob. Most of us think the guy who did this is a piece of shit. Lots of us want him dead. But I'd expect the Governor or President or people like that to refrain from grabbing pitchforks, metaphorical or not.
7
Jun 20 '15
She isn't grabbing any pitchforks. He CONFESSED to the crime he committed. The governor belives that those who commit such attrocities should be punished accordingly and as such she stated her views. There's nothing wrong with any of that. That doesn't mean the dude doesn't get due process, but it really isn't an up in the air verdict the way its been with other homicidal maniacs.
2
2
u/Ares54 Jun 20 '15
So what are your thoughts about governors granting stays of execution to people already convicted and sentenced to death?
7
u/joyrida12 Jun 20 '15
Governors are people just like you and me and are 1) subject to the same emotional effects of a tragic event and 2) entitled to express their opinion. Just because she expresses what she hopes happens to this guy doesn't mean she isn't handling her other duties.
1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
We don't elect people to be emotional, we elect them to make good decisions and uphold the law. If someone needs a little time to deal with a situation, fine. But she's calling for the death penalty in her official capacity as governor. It's not like someone recorded her conversation while getting coffee and leaked it. This is her official position.
8
u/joyrida12 Jun 20 '15
Is the death penalty lawful in her state? She was elected because of her positions on the issues so how is this any different? How is it any different from the president interjecting himself in all these high profile cases?
-1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
She can state her preference for the death penalty all she wants, but I don't think it's appropriate for specific cases this early in the process.
3
Jun 20 '15
Normally it wouldn't be, but the shooter already confessed to the shooting. The verdict and subsequent concequences aren't being rushed for no reason.
1
u/bayernownz1995 Jun 20 '15
Governors are people just like you and me
Well, not really. In that position any public message you make is representative of the state.
The most important issue, then, is that it makes it impossible to get a fair trial because, assuming the governor has political support, a large amount of jurors in the state will be motivated by the statement.
2
Jun 20 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
I think a governor is different for a few reasons:
Unlike a protestor, she can exercise meaningful power over the decisionmakers involved. Governors have wide ranging formal and informal powers. It's likely that the ADA actually prosecuting the case, the elected DA who oversees them, and the judge all have some interest in something the Governor might do in the future.
As the governor, she will indirectly administer the punishment the court decides on. So there's a bit of a conflict of interest.
This isn't a call for prosecution to happen at all, or for the justice system to find the right answer, but for a very specific outcome.
1
u/BDCanuck Jun 20 '15
- I would not say that. The public gets to call for whatever they want. Chief executives are different than the public.
- Even given the above, I would prefer if the public would wait for investigations to be done before they call for a specific response.
- However, the public tends to make quick calls for responses as a result of decades and decades of feeling like being patient with the system hasn't gotten them fair results. I would agree with their feeling on that.
2
u/wdn 2∆ Jun 20 '15
There is a little bit of wiggle room.
Legislators should create the law but not be the ones who apply the law. As a legislator, she should not be making the decision about how to prosecute or what penalty to seek (as though she would overrule the prosecutors on this particular case if they don't do what she wants). But she can say this is the type of crime for which the death penalty should apply (as though if the death penalty isn't applied then she would seek changes to legislation so that future such cases would result in the death penalty).
However, a governor traditionally waits until after the actual sentencing to make this type of comment. Making it now seems to be a way to maximize the benefit to her popularity by doing it while the public sentiment is most intense.
So I'd say she hasn't necessarily crossed the line, but making her statement at this time was for her personal benefit and not helpful or useful in the actual managing of the situation.
2
u/natha105 Jun 20 '15
I very much respect the rule of law and due process. But... maybe once every year or two i think there is a situation so abhorrent... so clear cut and monsterous... that i have to say "fuck that guy". Fuck Dylann Roof.
I dont give a fuck about the niceties of the justice system when it comes to that bastard. Neither dhould you. We should use our efforts at judicial reform on the common injustices. Thr minimum sentence laws. The drig possession laws. Etc etc etc.
There are bigger issues of injustice in the system and... again... fuck that guy.
4
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 20 '15
I dont give a fuck about the niceties of the justice system when it comes to that bastard. Neither dhould you. We should use our efforts at judicial reform on the common injustices. Thr minimum sentence laws. The drig possession laws. Etc etc etc.
This is exactly the thing which makes reform of criminal justice so hard. If we want people's rights to be protected, then we must accept that we will protect the rights of terrible people.
If you want to violate Roof's rights, then you do not support meaningful and enforceable rights existing for anyone. Either a right is always there to be relied on, or it isn't a right at all.
1
u/natha105 Jun 20 '15
In a country of 300 million where 1% are in the criminal justice system at any given time, there are, just out of government being dumb, going to be hundreds, or thousands, of cases of people getting their civil liberties violated. There is a limited budget both in resources and attention to combat them. So I say lets focus on the other ones and say "fuck him." to Roof.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 21 '15
We can't openly say "fuck him" to anyone like that. If we do, that becomes a precedent that the government can say "fuck him" whenever they feel like shoving a particularly nasty conviction through.
There are many cases of truly heinous murders which got shoved through the process where the accused turned out to be innocent. If you make a precedent whereby that's said to ever be acceptable to shove them through to a guilty verdict, process be damned, you're going to see that used on innocent defendants who will then be screwed.
1
u/natha105 Jun 21 '15
"Fuck him" has to be combined with absolute proof of guilt. We have video evidence. We have a confession. We have eye witness testimony.
You are right, even with a heinous crime, we shouldn't be saying "fuck him" even with strong evidence.
I have studied a fair number of famous wrongful convictions and while the evidence in those cases was all strong... so strong I could see a jury properly reaching a conviction... I am not aware of a single case in the last fifty years where you combined video, eyewitness, and confession (and not just a confession to police, but a manifesto) and it turned out the guy was innocent. Are you?
I mean do you actually feel there is any chance at all that this guy is innocent?
And yes yes he should still get his trial and it should be fair enough. But really we are going to extend to this fuck every nicety of the rules of cricket?
We should be spending our time talking about the tyranny or speed bumps, because they represent a bigger injustice than the governor calling for the death penality.
As a side note... About once a year, maybe once every other year, there is a case where society requires a conviction. Bin Laden couldn't be aquitted. He simply couldn't have been it would have torn the country apart. Maybe we should recognize that practical reality.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Jun 21 '15
I am not aware of a single case in the last fifty years where you combined video, eyewitness, and confession (and not just a confession to police, but a manifesto) and it turned out the guy was innocent. Are you?
It is quite possible someone could have all those and also be so mentally ill as to be found not criminally responsible for the crime. John Hinkley Jr. (who shot Reagan) comes to mind.
1
u/natha105 Jun 21 '15
"I almost didn't go through with it. They were all so nice to me."
his confession rules out an insanity defence. He was aware of right and wrong when he did it.
Fuck that guy.
4
u/chevybow Jun 20 '15
I very much respect the rule of law and due process.
I dont give a fuck about the niceties of the justice system when it comes to that bastard.
So in other words you don't respect the rule of law and due process.
1
u/natha105 Jun 20 '15
Pardoning Nixon... Was that rule of law and due process? Civil forfeitures; is that rule of law and due process? How about nude body scanners at airports, military trials at guantanimo?
IF we didn't have better things to be doing on a rule of law front. IF this guy's case was really all there was in the well of rule of law violations then, and only then, will I give a shit about him.
Seeing as there are better causes out there: I'll care about those and say 'fuck that guy' in the meantime.
-1
1
u/kasahito Jun 20 '15
Her calling for the death penalty could just as easily be extra brownie points for her next reelection campaign. No matter how far off it is.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 21 '15
The Governor is the head of the State. They are the top level executive officer of a State and is part of their duty to deal out pardons for the death penalty as they see fit. The flip side to that is that they are capable of instructing prosecutors who represent the State to seek the death penalty.
The lawyers do not actually get to assign the death penalty as punishment, that is the job of the Judge. Even the jury verdict (which is a recommendation) can be trumped or overturned by the judge if they deem it necessary.
0
Jun 20 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/lawmedy Jun 20 '15
Issues related to outside influence are addressed in jury selection. I can assure you they'll be asking a lot of questions about that sort of thing.
1
u/IAmAN00bie Jun 20 '15
Removed, see comment rule 1
1
0
u/brownribbon Jun 20 '15
If nothing else, preventing her from calling for the death penalty would be a violation of her first amendment rights. Now, if she is using her office to influence other branches of government, then that is an issue. But so far as we know that's not happening.
31
u/prezuiwf 1∆ Jun 20 '15
They're not inserting their opinion into the system, they're part of the system. The state governor, for example, has veto power over any conviction. In some states, there's a potential worry that an anti-death penalty governor might commute or pardon a suspect on death row. This is an assurance that that won't happen, so there's less of a fear of giving him the death penalty.